The Pragmatic Theory Of Truth William James

The Pragmatic Theory Of Truth William James The Pragmatic theory of truth is made up of the accounts, definitions, and theories of the concept truth that distinguish the philosophies of pragmatism and pragmaticism. This concept of truth is the subject of many great thinkers ideas, who influenced this area of philosophy and whose theories, though different have common features. These thinkers were Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey. Some of the most characteristic features can be identified as a relying on the pragmatic maxim to clarify meanings of difficult concepts, and also an emphasis, that belief, knowledge and truth are actually a product of the process: inquiry. As most pragmatic theories, this one has roots in the minds of earlier philosophers and their philosophies, especially the Golden Age, the Scholastics and Immanuel Kant. They provide a solid background for an invaluable insight into the twist and twirl of ideas that developed in the more modern time. Due to the fact that truth through the pragmatic prism is quite often confused with a number of other notions, I believe that underlining these will put the subject matter into the proper context to contrast. Truth is a term used to describe those beliefs that are capable of reliably guiding action to an expected outcome. We call a belief true when it successfully leads us to an anticipated experience. For example, my belief that there will be a full moon on the 30th of this month counts as true when, sure enough, I look at the sky that night and see a full moon. When that happens, we can certainly say this belief is now true, but we are naturally tempted to wonder if this belief was true a few weeks ago, when I first wrote these words. A classical conception of truth is that it is the good of logic, in a case in which logic is a normative science that is an examination into a good, or a value that looks for knowledge and ways to reach it. Most explorations of the very character of truth commence with the evaluation of the elements that make up that truth. In judging whether the carrier of information, meaning and significance are undeniably truth-bearers. If we take things into consideration in a very general matter, there are slim chances that the judgment of a work, proving to be either true or false, will become set in stone; it will most probably always remain a judgment call, as it is more commonly referred to. Nevertheless there are many properly delineated areas in which it is indeed useful to consider disciplined forms of evaluation and the observation of these leads to and permits the method to come into existence and further judge truth and falsity. Theories of truth can be depicted taking into account the several aspects of description that affect the quality of what is true. The truth predicates used in various theories can be classified by the number of things that condition the proper judgment of a sign, the sign being one of the very first things to be looked at. Formal logic calls this the arity of the predicate. Another division can be made in accordance with the subdivision of any number of more specific characters that theorists consider crucial A mondiac truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject typically a concrete representation or its abstract content independently of reference to anything else. In this case a truthbearer is true in and of itself. A dyadic truth predicate applies to its main subject only in reference to something else, a second subject. Most commonly, the auxiliary subject is either an object, an interpreter, or a language to which the representation bears some relation. The third form of truth predicate is the triadic one, which applies to its main subject only in reference to a second and third subject. In a pragmatic theory of truth, for example, one has to state clearly both the object of the sign, and either its interpreter or another sign called the interpretant, before it can be said that the sign is true of its object to its interpreting agent. Numerous requirements must regarded with respect to any fundamentally simple scheme of classification, as real practice rarely has any pure types, and there are circumstances in which it is useful to mention of a theory of truth that is almost k-adic, or that would be k-adic if specific features could be abstract away and neglected in a certain framework of discussion. William James was an original thinker in and between the disciplines of physiology, psychology and philosophy. His twelve-hundred page masterwork, The Principles of Psychology (1890), is a rich blend of physiology, psychology, philosophy, and personal reflection that has given us such ideas as the stream of thought and the babys impression of the world as one great blooming, buzzing confusion (PP 462). It contains seeds of pragmatism and phenomenology, and influenced generations of thinkers in Europe and America, including Edmund Husserl, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. James studied at Harvards Lawrence Scientific School and the School of Medicine, but his writings were from the outset as much philosophical as scientific. Some Remarks on Spencers Notion of Mind as Correspondence (1878) and The Sentiment of Rationality (1879, 1882) presage his future pragmatism and pluralism, and contain the first statements of his view that philosophical theories are reflectio ns of a philosophers temperament. William James argued a century ago for a conception of truth that establishes a clear middle way between the rigid logicism of contemporary analytical philosophy and the relativity of contemporary hermeneutics and deconstructionism. James argued for a humanistic and practical conception of truth, rooted in human experience and indexed to available evidence, and the perspective of human individuals or groups. His conception of the pragmatic theory is often summarized by his statement, that: the true is only is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the right is only the expedient in our way of behaving. Jamess take on truth and knowledge is a quite unique one. He separates two ways of knowing things, one being an intuitive knowledge, in direct experience, as a person would see an apple on the table, which he describes as an all around embracing of the object by thought, or one could know through an outer chain of physical or mental intermediaries connecting thought and thing as Europeans know the rainforests. James held that the intuitive form of knowledge was direct understanding, unmediated by anything, and truth for intuitive knowledge was a matter of direct consciousness in the flow of experience. For theoretical or representative knowledge, to know that a belief was true was to lead to it through a context which the world supplies Speaking about the truth and some theoretical representations of reality, it can be stated that a person has not the freedom to hypothesize any theories or facts he pleases, because of the complexity of the process: in direct experience of either an immediate and intuitive kind, or of an intellectual kind meaning processes within the circumstances the world supplies. These circumstances for creating rational ideas comprise processes in nature, representational systems, social world, and a connection between the stream of consciousness and all of the beforehand mentioned elements. These intellectual experiences offer a verification process and are integrated in the verification process of future truths as well. Beliefs at any time are so much experience funded. But the beliefs are themselves parts of the sum total of the worlds experience, and become matter, therefore, for the next days funding operations. So far as reality means experienceable reality, both it and the truths men gain about it are everlastingly in process of mutation-mutation towards a definite goal, it may be-but still mutation. Jamess metaphor linking the value of true knowledge with those of banking operations underlines the fact that truth must be advantageous. Experiences creating the basis of a truth must be interconnected themselves, thus theories and facts must be repeatedly modified if changes in circumstance occur. In Jamess words, the pragmatic theory of truth is True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those we cannot. That is the practical difference it makes to us to have true ideas; that, therefore is the meaning of truth, for it is all that truth is known-as. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process, the process namely of its verifying itself, its verification. Its validity is the process of its validation. Starting from this idea, to James the truth and contexts of conscious experience, interaction with processes of the surrounding world, connection between things and ideas, also theories we have of the world and its mechanisms were inseparable. According to James there are on occasion two different explanations are in equal measure compatible with the facts, though there usually are not. Finding enough unruly facts will lead to a revision of theories, which will make people search for innovative facts and ideas. To obtain the notion of absolute truth one must look backward to the history of development of the notion and the history of corrections it suffered through the process of formation. Euclidean Geometry, Ptolemaic Physics and Astronomy, and Scholastic Logic and Metaphysics have all been replaced through the development of new systems of fact and theories. On the other hand, if we look into the future and see before our spiritual eyes an absolute truth toward which we are heading, we are clearly making a mistake and James said that new truth can exist only as consequences of new theories. For truths surface from facts, but they also move forward and add to them, out of which repeatedly new facts and new truths come into existence. James views rationalists conception that truth has no connection with practical reasoning as a mistake, just like the sentimentalist myth about morality. Kant argued that morality was a question of abstract, general truths discovered from pure reason through a categorical imperative. This suggests that acts can only be morel if they succumb to a logical rule and never because of certain feelings or positive consequences they will result in. In Kants point of view, only logical coherence with a categorical imperative counts in establishing morality, and that experience is irrelevant. Jamess take on this is that he holds that Kantian moralists could define and theoreticise about justice, but could not identify it in real life. He said both truth and morality have to be matters of practice in experience, otherwise they are basically meaningless. James also considered truth-seeking a form of humanistic endeavor, rooted in human life. The moral, emotional and knowledge-seeking functions of human life can not be as radically divorced from one another as the Platonism inherent in math and science sometimes misleads abstractly-oriented people to believe. James said that all true processes must lead to the face of directly verifying sensible experiences somewhere. He also extended his pragmatic theory well beyond the scope of scientific verifiability, and even into the realm of the mystical: On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is true. True ideas are copies if their realities. Jamess other idea is that truth is not made for us, instead we jointly create, make truth. In this sense truth is mutable (changeable, variable) and relative to a conceptual scheme. Truth is not predefined in pragmatism, in Jamess perspective beliefs are not true until validated by verification. He believed propositions become true over the line of continuously proving to be useful in a persons specific situation. So, with James, and also Schiller, things are made true through verification this being largely rejected by most pragmatists. Nevertheless the idea that there can be no truths without some sort of conceptual scheme to express them, is a generally accepted one. Unless we decide upon how we are going to use concepts like object, existance, etc., the question how many objects exist does not really make any sense. But once we decide the use of these concepts, the answer to the above-mentioned question within that use or version, to put in Nelson Goodmans phrase, is no more a matter of convention. (Maitra 200 p. 40) The pragmatic theory of truth is an unmistaken result of the American pragmatic philosophical thinking of the early and mid twentieth century. As I stated before, through this prism the nature of truth is identified with the principle of action. An oversimplified way of putting it would be that truth, as such, does not exist in some conceptual, theoretical area of thought independent of social relationship or actions, but rather truth is a function of a dynamic process of engagement with the world and verification. Despite the fact that this notion is associated predominantly with the work of William James and James Dewey, some traces of the pragmatic theory of truth are present in the works of Peirce too, who says that there is no distinction of meaning so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice. The gist of this is that a person cannot imagine a truth or belief, unless imagining I what way that matters in the world also. For example the truth of the idea that ice is cold cannot be comprehended or accepted without also understanding what coldness means in context with other objects too, like cold water, cold feet and so on. A consequence of this is that the discovery of truth happens only through interaction with the world. Truth cannot be found while sitting idly on a chair and thinking about things. People search for belief, not doubt, and this happens on every one of the numerous occasions we come in contact with the world, may that be while doing research or just putting ourselves out there, coming into contact with our surroundings. A number of significant changes were brought about by James in relation to a better understanding of truth. The most crucial being probably the revision of the public character of truth. William James made a number of important changes to the Pragmatist understanding of truth. He shifted the process of belief-formation, application, experimentation, and observation from the general to a more intimate level, that of the individual. In this way, a belief turned into truth, when it proved to have practical use in the life of the individual. His theory was that it took time until a person could get from pretending that a belief was true and acting as such, until it actually became useful, helpful and productive, and indeed seen and considered true. An important field of application of this theory of truth was that of religion, particularly the question of the existence of God. Taken from his book Pragmatism is a statement which is as follows: On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true. While in The Meaning of Truth: The true is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the right is only the expedient in our way of behavior. Jamess theory and the pragmatic theory in general, as any other philosophical theory, can be confronted on a number of levels. Questions can be raised concerning the ambiguity of terms and of consequences and results. What does what works mean exactly, if taken as James suggests it in the widest sense of the word? Also how can one judge a complex paradigms truth value if it is not 100 percent inclining one way or the other? If we state something like It is useful to assume I will pass my exams., that is not at all the same as the statement that It is true that I will pass my exams. It doesnt work that way. True beliefs are not always useful, and vice-versa, useful ones are not always true. Nietzsche put it like this: The falseness of a judgement is not necessarily an objection to a judgment: it is here that our new language perhaps sounds strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding; and our fundamental tendency is to assert that the falsest judgements (to which synthetic judgments a priori belong ) are the most indispensable to us, that without granting as true the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a continual falsification of the world by means of numbers, mankind could not live that to renounce false judgements would be to renounce life, would be to deny life. To recognize untruth as a condition of life: that, to be sure, means to resist customary value-sentiments in a dangerous fashion; and a philosophy which ventures to do so places itself , by that act alone, beyond good and evil. (Beyond Good and Evil, 333) Now, Pragmatism may be a handy means for distinguishing truth from untruth. After all, that which is true should produce predictable consequences for us in our lives. In order to determine what is real and what is unreal, it would not be unreasonable to focus primarily upon that which works. This, however, is not quite the same as the Pragmatic Theory of Truth as described by William James.

Behavioral Science TV Character Evaluation

Sigmund Freud’s chief contributions to the field of psychology are his investigations into the nature of the â€Å"unconscious† and the psychosexual development stages of human beings especially the infants. It was Freud who proposed that a crucial part of human development depends on the person’s ability to overcome or control his respective pleasures during the stage of infancy or childhood.The inability to control these pleasures, Freud claims, will certainly take their toll on the individual during the latter stages in life. On the other hand, Carl Rogers proposed that understanding human personalities and relationships require an approach that focuses on the individual rather than on the external environment that are presumed to influence people’s behaviors.He formulated a person-centered theory that is founded on at least nineteen propositions, all of which are tied to the general notion of treating the individual as the foundation of any inquiry int o human personalities and relationships. His concept of a person who is able to function fully departs from other ideas in the sense that he does not discount the idea that even those things which we perceive as destructive can also contribute to the growth of the person.Finally, Carl Gustav Jung championed the idea that spirituality is an integral part of human development, even taking an important role in his concepts of therapy in curing an individual from both physical and emotional difficulties. He also focused on the concepts of the â€Å"archetype† as well as the anima and the animus, quite apart from his elaborate discussions on the concept of the â€Å"collective unconscious† and the â€Å"complex†. Moreover, he also espoused the concept of â€Å"individuation† as a way for an individual to realize his fullest potentials.

The Birth of Jesus

The painting depicts the prediction of the birth of Jesus and how it came to pass. This happened after the visitation of angel Gabriel to Mary, who was a simple and humble Jewish woman. The angel broke the news to Mary that she had found favor with God, and she will conceive and give birth to a son, Jesus (Chisholm, Hugh, ed, (1911). He further elaborated that Jesus would be the son of God, the most high. At this point, Mary was totally confused and worried about the abrupt news but she later consoled herself and said since she was God's servant, she will do as he says. Moreover, Mary was betrothed to a man called Joseph, who lived in Nazareth (Baynes, T.S., ed., 1978). During this time, a Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus had ordered a census and both Mary and Joseph had to travel to the town of Bethlehem (Orenstein, Nadine M., ed. 2001). The journey took them several days and by the time they arrived, the inn was already full and they were compelled to spend their night near the livestock's shed. Coincidentally, Mary gave birth to Jesus and laid him in a manger. In the same night, there were shepherds in the field near Bethlehem and were watching over their flocks. Suddenly, the angel appeared to them and broke the good news to them that savior, the Messiah had been born and is lying in a manger. (Freed, Edwin D 2004). They immediately hurried to the place and found Jesus as they were directed. They later went to spread the news. Later, wise men saw a star in the sky that signified the birth of a new king. They followed it to the place where Jesus was and knelt down to worship him. They brought him gifts of gold, myrrh, and frankincense. According to Mosaic laws, Jesus was taken to the temple where he was named, circumcised and purified. This was conducted by Simeon.In the first scene, angel Gabriel appears to Mary. The second scene shows the shepherds and wise men who came to visit Jesus and his parent Mary and Joseph. Finally, Jesus is taken to the temple by his parents and is received by Simeon. During the visitation of Jesus by wise men, the gifts were used as a symbol of honor to the born king. Joseph is the patron artist who was a simple village man (St. Joseph Biography). His original location was Nazareth. He was chosen by God to be the earthly father of Jesus. He was a carpenter and had gathered exceptional skills in craft work (Alin Suciu, 2009). He feared God and he would obey him in face of severe humiliation. He came from a humble background and this subjected him to engage in carpentry. Also, Joseph was a man of strong conviction and lived his beliefs in his actions (Bart D., 2011). He is celebrated for his obedience and patience even after Mary, his fiancà © gave birth to Jesus although she was a virgin. Jesus was regarded as an artist because he used to give verbal, visual and dramatic forms to the complicated situations (J. Dwight Pentecost, 1998). He taught the word of God by giving analogies, parables, and creative expressions (Andrew S., 25 September 2015). According to the gospels, his birth took place on November of 5 B.C at Bethlehem. After he completed his work on earth, he died on A.D 33 at a place called Golgotha (Pheme Perkins, 2007.). He was known for using parables in his teachings. (John P. Meler 1992). The original location of his artwork was first meant to be viewed in synagogues, where he presented various sermons. Moreover, this artwork was religious and was meant to make his followers think critically so as to understand the word of God fully. Also, they were used as a means of illustrating profound and divine truths. He claimed that such stories were easily remembered and indicated symbolism that was rich in meaning. â€Å"The entire artwork can be traced back to Gospel period where absolute chronology of Jesus is explained into details (Michael Grant, 1977)†. Further, this historical period is recorded in a number of historical and non-Christian documents like Jewish and Greco-Roman sources (Marcus Borg, 1999). Further information indicated that the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus marked prominent historical events. This period simply means the genesis of the good news and it cut across various groups of people. During this period, Jesus started his ministry, which was later considered as fulfillment of New Testament prophecies (W.D Davies, 1984). He walked down all cities along with his disciples preaching the gospel and urging the people to repent so as to see the kingdom of God. This took him the whole of his lifetime on earth. During this period, he faced mockery and humiliation from some groups although he had a good number of followers. â€Å"Artwork was made to make the Christians understand that those who humble themselves, God uplifts them (Ben Witherington III, 1998)†. This is portrayed when Virgin Mary, a simple village woman was visited by an angel and informed her of good news. Later, the birth of Jesus in the manger indicated the humble beginning of his life (Meier, John P, (1991). It also expressed that Jesus was the king since he was visited by various people who came to worship him. Also, Christians should understand the need of recognizing the church as the temple of God. Even the parent of Jesus observed mosaic laws and took him to the temple for various rituals. Therefore, Christians should follow the footsteps of Jesus by obeying the word of God. Works CitedBen Witherington III. (1998). â€Å"Primary Sources†. Christian History, 17(3), 12-20.Freed, Edwin D (2004).â€Å"Stories of Jesus' Birth†. Continuum International: 119. John P. Meler (1992). Bordering Jew on Reconsidering the Historical Jesus.â€Å"A Chronology of Jesus Life,† pp. 375-433. Anchor Bible Reference Library. Michael Grant. (1977). Jesus. An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p.71 Scribner's

Revenge Cause More Harm Than Good - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 740 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2019/04/01 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Revenge Essay Did you like this example? Revenge is defined as a desire to do harm in return for a wrong; returning evil for evil; vengeance (Webster Dictionary). Revenge is very powerful and, in most instances, can cause more harm than good. Sadly, it is something people will encounter in their everyday life. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Revenge Cause More Harm Than Good" essay for you Create order In William Shakespeares Hamlet, several of the characters feel the need to get revenge on others in order to to restore their family honor. Revenge plays a huge role in the character development of Fortinbras, Hamlet, and Laertes. All three men seek revenge for the murder of their fathers. Fortinbras redeems his fathers lost honor by gaining territory; Hamlet must avenge his fathers death by killing Claudius; and Laertes must avenge his father by getting revenge on Hamlet. Each character is driven throughout the novel by this burning desire for revenge. Hamlet is tasked with retaliating for his fathers murder. However, he faces a dilemma: should he believe in the honesty of the ghost? For all he knows, the ghost might be a devil. Because his first instinct is to be a truth-seeker, his first step is to evaluate the truth of the ghosts command, but this self-examination causes delay. Moreover, his extreme depression at his mothers detestable remarriage, and the fact that Claudius was elected king, has served to make him sarcastic and disbelieving. A chain of circumstances provides a series of obstacles that Hamlet first has to overcome in order to achieve his revenge. This however, affects Hamlet on a spiritual level, as he accepts that both good and evil exist in the world, and that there is a fitness in performing his duty of revenge. His nobility and balance is at constant war with each other from the beginning to the end of the play. The ethical concerns Hamlet has for Claudius and Gertrude are plain to see, at the time, the chur ch considered marriage to a sister in law tantamount to incest. Hamlets ethical concerns surrounding his mothers sudden remarriage is overtly expressed when Gertrude asks Hamlet at her wedding, If it be, why seems it so particular with thee? Hamlet disputes Gertrudes charge that he is being hypocritical, Seems, madam? Nay, it is, I know not seems. For him, she is the one who has shown hypocrisy and he does not agree with her seems Whereas, Hamlets social concerns for Denmark is purely centered around the king and the influence he might have on the rest of the kingdom. Hamlet makes use of an ambiguous pun that depicts his dislike towards Claudiuss insincerity and Claudiuss attempt to polish over what has happened. Hamlet displays clear hostility, A little more than kin, and less than kind, Hamlet is more than close in relationship to Claudius (an uncle and a father), but He resents him and has no feelings of liking and kinship for Claudius. Although deeply sorrowed by his fathers death, he did not consider payback as an option until he meets with the ghost of his father. The ghost tells Hamlet King Claudius, his own brother, murdered him. The ghost then tells Hamlet to revenge his foul and most unnatural murder (I.v.25). Although murder was an acceptable form of revenge in Hamlets time he is uncertain about killing Claudius. However, upon his fathers command, Hamlet reluctantly swears to retaliate against Claudius. Hamlet does this not because he wants to, but because his father makes it clear that it is his duty as a son. Hamlet promises to prove his love and duty by killing Claudius. Young Fortinbras was deeply angered by the death of his father, and he wanted revenge against Denmark, due to this occurrence. Fortinbras wanted to regain the lands that had been lost by his father to Denmark. Now sir, young Fortinbras as it doth well appear unto our state-but to recover of us, by strong hand and terms compulsive, those aforesaid lands so by his father lost Claudius sends messengers to talk to Fortinbras uncle, the new King of Norway. He forbid Fortinbras to attack Denmark, and instead convinced him to attack the Poles to vent his anger. His nephews levies, which to him appeared to be a preparation against the Polack; But better looked into, he truly found it was against your highness. On Fortinbras; which he, in brief, obeys, receives rebuke from Norway, and, in fine, makes vow before his uncle never more to give the assay of arms against your majesty.